AstroSkipper Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Hackerman said: I should have mentioned, I have a Pentium III processor with SSE and MMX running at 733 MHz. Is this good enough? I don't know as your CPU is very weak. Try the Mypal 68.14.3b SSE release, and you will see whether it works or not. 13 minutes ago, Hackerman said: palemoon-28.10.7a1.win32-git-20240720-d849524bd-uxp-8fbf81bb8a-xpmod-sse.7z 13 minutes ago, Hackerman said: basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20240720-3219d2d-uxp-8fbf81bb8a-xpmod-ia32.7z These should be the right ones matching your hardware specs. But it is always a game of trial and error. So, check them! You can't lose anything. Edited July 22 by AstroSkipper 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroSkipper Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 And if you still need the very old, abandoned Mozilla Firefox 52.9.1 ESR, here is a link: https://web.archive.org/web/20210730234012/https://download-origin.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/tinderbox-builds/mozilla-esr52-win32/1536215521/firefox-52.9.1.en-US.win32.installer.exe Alternatively, one link from the first post still works: http://sdfox7.com/xp/sp3/EOL/firefox-52.9.1.en-US.win32.installer.exe 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroSkipper Posted July 22 Share Posted July 22 @Hackerman Here are two further, more recent SSE alternatives. A Firefox 45 fork: http://o.rthost.win/gpc/files1.rt/firefox-45.9.34-20230930-69f77fc6e-win32-sse.7z and New Moon 27: https://o.rthost.win/palemoon/palemoon-27.10.0.win32-git-20240720-be4fef94e8-xpmod-sse.7z 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hackerman Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 (edited) 17 hours ago, AstroSkipper said: I don't know as your CPU is very weak. Try the Mypal 68.14.3b SSE release, and you will see whether it works or not. Not! - it does not work. Each time I start it, I get the same error twice. mypal.exe - Programfel Det gick inte att initiera programmet korrekt (0xc000001d). Klicka på OK för att avsluta programmet. It's a critical error and execution comes to a halt. The message says it could not initiate the program correctly, and I am only offered the option to click OK to quit the program. I extracted the Zip file on the target laptop and then also on my main desktop PC, just to ensure file integrity. That was not the cause of the error. 17 hours ago, AstroSkipper said: These should be the right ones matching your hardware specs. But it is always a game of trial and error. So, check them! You can't lose anything. Yes. These two worked correctly, palemoon-28.10.7a1.win32 (XP mod with SSE optimization), basilisk52-g4.8.win32 (XP mod (for IA-32)). I'm not sure if one is faster than the other. They were about the same in terms of performance. After Mypal failed, I tried Basilisk first and then Pale Moon (New Moon?). One thing I noticed is that Google Search is quicker on Basilisk, and that's because a more simple, legacy style Google Search interface is presented in Basilisk than in Pale Moon. Is it possible to manually switch interface on Google.com to the legacy interface? That's less intense for this PC. With only 733 MHz and 256 MB, there is not much performance to talk about. Everything was very slow. Paging file usage in Task Manager was often above 300 MB. On an old and tired IDE HDD. So you can imagine. 15 hours ago, AstroSkipper said: And if you still need the very old, abandoned Mozilla Firefox 52.9.1 ESR, here is a link: https://web.archive.org/web/20210730234012/https://download-origin.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/tinderbox-builds/mozilla-esr52-win32/1536215521/firefox-52.9.1.en-US.win32.installer.exe Alternatively, one link from the first post still works: http://sdfox7.com/xp/sp3/EOL/firefox-52.9.1.en-US.win32.installer.exe Thanks. I will install this too as a fallback option. The reason I asked for a working link is because I wanted an official link from Mozilla. But I could not find one now, 5 years later. The Internet Archive link is as official as it will get. Unfortunately. I still wonder why Mozilla never released this version if it was the last version for XP. It will remain a mystery. I have now downloaded it from both Sdfox7 and from Internet Archive, and I have checked them both. The files are identical and clean. Nothing personal Stephen! @sdfox7 I am always very cautious about downloading files from unknown sources. Thank you for hosting the file for reference and for posterity. I still think Mozilla should be the number one source and hosting this file. But for whatever reason, they don't. Edited July 23 by Hackerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroSkipper Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 (edited) 56 minutes ago, Hackerman said: Is it possible to manually switch interface on Google.com to the legacy interface? Yes. Lower the user agent in about:config via the general.useragent.override.google.com or general.useragent.override.google.xxx pref where xxx is your country-specific TLD! If it doesn't exist, create this pref as a string one. This is a site-specific user agent. Choosing a mobile user agent for Google is also possible and makes the Google searches even faster. Edited July 23 by AstroSkipper correction 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hackerman Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 (edited) On 7/23/2024 at 3:18 PM, AstroSkipper said: Yes. Lower the user agent in about:config via the general.useragent.override.google.com or general.useragent.override.google.xxx pref where xxx is your country-specific TLD! If it doesn't exist, create this pref as a string one. This is a site-specific user agent. Choosing a mobile user agent for Google is also possible and makes the Google searches even faster. How low is low enough for Google? Of all the browsers I have installed, only Firefox 45 didn't have that string. I have installed Basilisk/Serpent 52.9.0, Pale Moon (New Moon) 27.10.0, K-Meleon 76.5.4, and Firefox 45.9.34. They all come with overrides already in place? Except for Firefox? Here are my current user agent override settings for Google and Google Videos (the second override). SERPENT 52.9.0 general.useragent.override.google.com;Mozilla/5.0 (%OS_SLICE% rv:71.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/71.0 Basilisk/52.9.0 general.useragent.override.googlevideos.com;Mozilla/5.0 (%OS_SLICE% rv:38.9) Gecko/20100101 Goanna/4.8 Firefox/38.9 Basilisk/52.9.0 NEW MOON 27.10.0 general.useragent.override.google.com;Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20010101 Goanna/3.6 Firefox/52.0 PaleMoon/27.10.0 general.useragent.override.googlevideos.com;Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20010101 Goanna/3.6 Firefox/52.0 PaleMoon/27.10.0 K-MELEON 76.5.4 general.useragent.override.google.com;Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20010101 Goanna/3.6 Firefox/52.0 PaleMoon/27.9 general.useragent.override.googlevideos.com;Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20010101 Goanna/3.6 Firefox/52.0 PaleMoon/27.9 FIREFOX 45.9.34 general.useragent.override N/A (none!!) --- general.useragent.compatMode.firefox;false general.useragent.locale;en-US general.useragent.site_specific_overrides;true What number or numbers do I need to change? I'm not familiar with user agent strings. So if I look at New Moon for example, "Gecko/20010101 Goanna/3.6" indicates browser engine? Why are there two of them in the same string? Goanna is based on Gecko. So why not just say Goanna? Or just Gecko? Is this number truthful? Is it really version 3.6? Is "20010101" a date? Why 1 Jan 2001? Similarly, "Firefox/52.0 PaleMoon/27.10.0" indicates browser version? Why are there two of them in the same string? Yes, Pale Moon is based on Firefox. So why not just say Pale Moon? Or just Firefox? Is this some kind of fallback thing? What number do I have to change then? And to what, for Google to accept it? Test and see, trial and error? What is "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0)" saying? What is "Mozilla/5.0"? I see OS is Windows and it's NT version 6.1, and it's 64 bit. Revision 52.0 is another indicator of browser version. Edited July 25 by Hackerman fixed a missing word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroSkipper Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 (edited) @Hackerman Mozilla/5.0 is the general token that says that the browser is Mozilla-compatible. For historical reasons, almost every browser today sends it. Windows NT 6.1; WOW64 implies that the browser's OS is Windows 7 64-bit. If you want to tell the website you are on Windows XP, you have to change that to Windows NT 5.1. Gecko and Goanna entries are information about used or compatible browser engines. More later. Edited July 25 by AstroSkipper 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroSkipper Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 (edited) As I already mentioned, you can also test mobile user agents. The advantage of a mobile user agent is that the offered version of a website is very often (but not always) much lighter. Here is a Firefox based mobile user agent originally used by Firefox on Android: Mozilla/5.0 (Android 9; Mobile; rv:125.0) Gecko/125.0 Firefox/125.0 You can lower the Firefox version of this string to a value you like, of course. In New Moon 28, @roytam1 has recently changed the default user agent to the following string: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.7) Goanna/6.7 PaleMoon/33.2 On my Pentium 4 2.8 GHz 32-bit computer, Google works fine with this user agent. In general, one can say that more recent user agent strings lead to a website version with full functionality but unfortunately very often more cumbersome on old, weak computers. But one thing is clear. It is always a game of trial and error. That said you should use a user agent extension for experimenting. Here is a very good one called User Agent Status: https://msfn.org/board/topic/183923-extensions-and-custom-buttons-for-uxp-browsers-corrections-modifications-adjustments-and-special-recommendations/?do=findComment&comment=1250958 At this point, I should mention that I additionally use several user scripts on Google websites in my browsers as, for example, Return Pagination to Google to make it the way I like it. If you have questions to extensions or user scripts, please do that in my thread Extensions and custom buttons for UXP browsers - Corrections, modifications, adjustments, and special recommendations as our conversation here has unfortunately become off-topic. Any browser related things should be requested in @roytam1's browser thread. Cheers, AstroSkipper Edited July 25 by AstroSkipper Update of content 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 1 hour ago, AstroSkipper said: As I already mentioned, you can also test mobile user agents. That doesn't "always" work. I have seen codecs "intended for" a mobile device cause nothing but a pegged CPU on weaker desktop/laptop hardware that was otherwise just fine before sending that mobile user agent. Works "most" of the time. Just saying I wouldn't assume "mobile is lighter". Modern mobile devices have faster download speeds than some ISP Plans. So don't send a mobile user agent for one of those, you'd shoot yourself in the foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroSkipper Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 16 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: That doesn't "always" work. I have seen codecs "intended for" a mobile device cause nothing but a pegged CPU on weaker desktop/laptop hardware that was otherwise just fine before sending that mobile user agent. Works "most" of the time. Just saying I wouldn't assume "mobile is lighter". Modern mobile devices have faster download speeds than some ISP Plans. So don't send a mobile user agent for one of those, you'd shoot yourself in the foot. We are talking here about using a mobile user agent only on google.com. And iin this case, Google Search performs much faster on old, weak computers. Especially in Thorium, it works great. All tested by me on my old machine. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 I see no difference on Google Search, to be honest. All of the "processing power" to perform a search is done on the server side, not the client side. I've not yet tried Thorium on my 14yr "young" Atom N450 Acer Aspire One. Mobile user agent or not, everything is SLOW AS MOLE a**#S on the ol' Acer. I wish I could "make it faster" with just a simple user agent change, but I suspect I have it tweaked to the max just with script-blocks and what not that no user agent improvement is noticeable any longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroSkipper Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 (edited) 2 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: I see no difference on Google Search, to be honest. All of the "processing power" to perform a search is done on the server side, not the client side. If you don't have or use an old, weak computer, for example, with a Pentium 3 or 4 CPU, you can't say anything here. The OP has an even older CPU than me. It's a Pentium 3 733 MHz SSE only. Therefore, your observations and assessments are not relevant and unfortunately missing the point. On my old machine with a Pentium 4 2.8 GHz, the Google Search works much faster when using a moblie user agent. And I only refer to the output in the browser. The performance on Google servers are of no interest and has nothing to do with the mobile user agent of the requesting browser. BTW, the difference in speed with or without using a moblie user agent is much more noticeable in Thorium on my computer. But you can only check my statements if you own a comparably old computer. Edited July 25 by AstroSkipper Update of content 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 2 hours ago, AstroSkipper said: you can't say anything here You sound arrogant and conceited, was that your intent? Is the forum getting renamed in your honor? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 2 hours ago, AstroSkipper said: your observations and assessments are not relevant BS. I'm on an XP-Era machine. Running 52.9.1 ESR. Thanks, btw, for the download link. I would suggest that even Serpent 52 users on XP also have a SAY and VOICE in this thread. Feel free to request ADMIN RIGHTS so that you can change the title of this thread to serve your purpose. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 Here, since you don't think I belong here, MY XP-Era machine IS SLOWER THAN YOURS. I belong here! Whether YOU like it or not. PassMark did not list the Pentium 3 for a comparison and it wasn't worth my time to locate this comparison for you. REALITY IS, if you want to pit my XP in a battle with your XP, yours is FASTER. Again, I belong here! Sure, mine is only 14yrs "young" and yours may be older by five calendar quarters, but age doesn't paint the entire canvas. And YES, I took GREAT OFFENSE to your statement claiming otherwise! "You are forgiven", whether you want to be or not. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts